312 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22533979)
1. Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids.
Putterman DB; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2012 May; 23(5):366-78. PubMed ID: 22533979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Difference in Speech Recognition between a Default and Programmed Telecoil Program.
Ledda KT; Valente M; Oeding K; Kallogjeri D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 Jun; 30(6):502-515. PubMed ID: 30461405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility.
Johnson EE; Dillon H
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011; 22(7):441-59. PubMed ID: 21993050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Effects of Manufacturer's Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss.
Quar TK; Umat C; Chew YY
J Am Acad Audiol; 2019 May; 30(5):346-356. PubMed ID: 30461383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures.
Valente M; Oeding K; Brockmeyer A; Smith S; Kallogjeri D
J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Sep; 29(8):706-721. PubMed ID: 30222541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of an Automated Hearing Aid Fitting Using Real Ear Measures Embedded in a Manufacturer Fitting Software.
Brockmeyer A; Voss A; Wick CC; Durakovic N; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2021 Mar; 32(3):157-163. PubMed ID: 34062602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experiments with classroom FM amplification.
Boothroyd A; Iglehart F
Ear Hear; 1998 Jun; 19(3):202-17. PubMed ID: 9657595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Telecoil-mode hearing aid compatibility performance requirements for wireless and cordless handsets: magnetic signal levels.
Julstrom S; Kozma-Spytek L; Isabelle S
J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 Sep; 22(8):515-27. PubMed ID: 22031676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of the Repeatability and Accuracy of the Wideband Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference.
Vaisberg JM; Folkeard P; Pumford J; Narten P; Scollie S
J Am Acad Audiol; 2018 Jun; 29(6):520-532. PubMed ID: 29863466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effectiveness of the directional microphone in the Baha® Divino™.
Oeding K; Valente M; Kerckhoff J
J Am Acad Audiol; 2010 Sep; 21(8):546-57. PubMed ID: 21034701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction on Subcortical and Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials in Older Listeners With Hearing Loss.
Slugocki C; Kuk F; Korhonen P
Ear Hear; 2020; 41(5):1282-1293. PubMed ID: 32058351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
Keidser G; Grant F
Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit.
Narayanan SE; Manjula P
Codas; 2021; 34(1):e20200310. PubMed ID: 34669764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Probe microphone measurements: 20 years of progress.
Mueller HG
Trends Amplif; 2001 Jun; 5(2):35-68. PubMed ID: 25425897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Differences in sensation level between the Widex Soundtracker and two real-ear analyzers.
Oeding K; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Sep; 24(8):660-70. PubMed ID: 24131602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of a BICROS System with a Directional Microphone in the Receiver and Transmitter.
Valente M; Oeding K
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015; 26(10):856-71. PubMed ID: 26554490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
Johnson EE
J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility.
Ching TY; Quar TK; Johnson EE; Newall P; Sharma M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Mar; 26(3):260-74. PubMed ID: 25751694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Effect of a High Upper Input Limiting Level on Word Recognition in Noise, Sound Quality Preferences, and Subjective Ratings of Real-World Performance.
Oeding K; Valente M
J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Jun; 26(6):547-62. PubMed ID: 26134722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments.
Pumford JM; Seewald RC; Scollie SD; Jenstad LM
J Am Acad Audiol; 2000 Jan; 11(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 10741354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
